?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Third hand stupid.


I really have to check my Emails more often.

Dick Puddlecote tipped me off to this new blog, and on it there's a calm and reasoned discussion of the new Righteous idiocy, third-hand smoke. Three minutes of your time, but this is only for those with minds of their own. If you're a brainwashed drone who believes the Word of the Great Righteous Prophet and needs no actual facts getting in the way, don't bother. Your mind is gone for good.

The 'scientific study' on third hand smoke consisted of a telephone poll asking ordinary people whether they thought it could be a problem. No research. No measurement of particles. No proof that any harmful particles even exist. No evidence at all, of any kind, other than the opinions of ordinary people.

Ordinary people who, as any wander along any street will demonstrate, are mostly idiots who will believe any damn thing they're told. I have convinced several people that the Romans built straight roads because they hadn't invented steering. There are people out there now who believe it and who are probably spreading it. When it ends up on your child's history curriculum, that was me. Sorry about that.

There are people who genuinely believe that pine trees don't need to be cut down. When they reach a certain size, they fall over by themselves to make room for new growth. Yes, there are people who believe it.  If you meet one, don't disabuse them because I had real trouble keeping a straight face for that one.

Sheep can climb trees. In the wild, pigs live in burrows. Starlings are spotty because they live in big flocks and crap on each other all the time. The ancient Celts painted themselves blue because the Romans were colour blind and couldn't see them against the grass. I have personally convinced idiots I have met of all these and more. I don't mean they gave in and humoured me, I mean absolutely convinced. All it takes is a straight face. Try it yourself.

So when you consider that third hand smoke must be true because sixty percent of ordinary people believe it's true, remember what else they can be convinced of.

Hell, twenty-odd percent of them still think voting Labour is a good idea! Forty percent think the Tories will be better! There's your sixty percent right there.

Of all the fun I've had convincing idiots of crazy theories, I have never come close to the lunatic idea that smoking is catching, and even associating with a smoker can make you die. I tip my hat to the Anti-Everything brigade on that one.

They have shown the stupidity of the population in a way I could only dream of.


wordpress blog stats

Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
dick_puddlecote
11th May, 2009 09:05 (UTC)
Blatant lies
I once convinced a group of four that sand 'grows'. :-)

Incredibly, the Great Ormond Street Hospital web-site has a page explaining the dangers of third hand smoke. Whne it was pointeed out to them that there was no science to show anything of the sort, they replied "we know it's bollocks, but we're leaving it up there" (not verbatim, obviously)
ext_180764
11th May, 2009 12:02 (UTC)
Normally I agree with you Leg Iron, but I can't believe you could criticise our government just because they care so much about the little babies.

Seriously though, two million abortions under New Labour and they're making them even more available. Cig. packets warn of the terrible damage to your unborn baby, yet a 'doctor' can dish out death, almost on demand.

I enjoyed this view from a Michael J. McFadden, Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” - http://globalhealthlaw.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/third-hand-%20smoke/#comment-52

As a student of Creation science, I disagree with his age of the Universe, but if his other data are correct then it's pretty compelling on the polonium-210 at least.
ext_186935
11th May, 2009 14:57 (UTC)
It is to laugh
This is priceless: "As a student of Creation science..." You've just revealed yourself as one of the windowlickers that leg-iron is talking about. If you think the Sky Pixie created the universe 6,000 years ago rather than 13.7 billion, you've already been convinced of something a lot stupider than the idea that sheep can climb trees.

ext_180764
11th May, 2009 20:43 (UTC)
Work it out

Oh, you're so brave and manly, Mr Anonymous. Can I be in your gang? You put up such a convincing argument.

Have you written books on the subject? You're an immense intellect.

Me too. I know the second hand smoke thing is largely a lie. I know the Lib/Lab/Con party is betraying us to the EU, etc. and I know you have been fooled into believing the Theory of Evolution is how you got here.

Incredible organisation and intelligence come out of chaos and undirected energy, do they? It cannot happen!

Keep checking back to my brand new site - www.darwinism.org.uk

Sorry about the plug, Leg Iron, but I'm sick of the ignorance surrounding a 200 year old theory that is being disproved through modern discoveries - and lack of in the case of evidence for intermediate life forms not appearing.

Now, where did they go? Work it out!

ext_186935
11th May, 2009 22:16 (UTC)
Re: Work it out
Oh dear. Bearing in mind that 2009 is the bicentenary of Darwin's birth, not the publication of The Origin of Species (1859), I am at a loss as to why anyone would take you seriously. Is your website's approach to the vérité similarly rigorous? I am definitely going to check it out. An unanticipated source of belly laughs is always a joy to find.

Creationists are so funny. It still amazes me that they exist in the 21st Century. It's like discovering a nest of unreconstructed Marxists, or believers in the Phlogiston theory. You do realise that that movie where Raquel Welch ran around in a fur bikini and fought dinosaurs wasn't a documentary?

"Work it out!" Well that's me told then. Hilarious.
(Anonymous)
11th May, 2009 23:09 (UTC)
No evidence

Dear boy, the Theory predates the publishing of that book. I bought the domain name because 2009 is the sesquicentenary of the book's publication.

Do please let me know if you find anything belly-achingly hilarious about believing a theory which is based upon little or no evidence. I was quite recently as gullible as you are - only when presented with compelling evidence of the fraud, I stopped being so trusting.

Tom Harris has already made the Raquel Welch joke against me. Are you plagiarising his gag? He said 'you know it wasn't a documentary'. Oh how we laughed...

In all seriousness though - you really believe that all these various intermediate forms or missing links existed in the transformation from one animal to the next?

Why has little or nothing been found in fossil evidence to back this up? If it really were true then there would be countless fossils of clear intermediate types to back up the Theory. Problem solved; game over.

Actually, as the evidence is clearly lacking then it is game over - for evolutionists.

Even Darwin admitted this was a problem for the Theory - how much more so now after millions of fossil hunters find the same old completely formed animals time after time?

Do you still hope in vain that the time will come when they will start appearing? They're never going to now!
ext_186935
12th May, 2009 03:27 (UTC)
Re: No evidence
I don't know which is more delicious: the splendid de haut en bas of 'dear boy', or the attempt to make the argument that Creationism is an alternative to the neo-Darwinian synthesis based on 'evidence'. And who is Tom Harris? The 'X is not a documentary/instruction manual' trope is hardly a new one. It didn't originate with me and I doubt it originated with this Harris fellow, whoever he is. Some cursory Googling reveals he may be some parvenu Labourite of the Porridge Wog persuasion, or a hairdresser from Stone Mountain, Georgia, USA. Either way he is of no account. Lazy of me to recycle the quip, no doubt, but devoting more than a small fraction of processing power to debating you would have been a shocking misallocation of valuable resources. No matter what our differences, you must admit that Ms. Welch looked scrumptious in her bearskin two-piece. Historical accuracy, or even common good sense, be damned!

I did indeed peruse your website. Apart from the fact that it looks like it was preserved in amber (ho ho) since 1996 or so, it was the usual half-baked congeries of selective quotations and tendentious cant. Adducing Stephen Jay Gould (hardly the evolutionists' Evolutionist) in support of your argument is tantamount to bearing false witness. Put in a bit of work and you might have a half-way decent knock-off of Answers in Genesis. It's really rather sweet that you think it represents such a radical new departure from the standard warmed-over God-bothering clichés that it will cause any die-hard Darwinian who stumbles upon it to clap his hand to his face and declaim, "how could I have been so blind?"

I can only surmise that your line on transitional forms is based on the idea that if you say something witless loud enough and often enough, people will agree with you out of embarrassment. To claim such forms do not exist is the result of either foolishness or a very sternly abbreviated literature search. But it's always the same with you people: given a beautiful intermediary specimen, you double down and ask for the transitional fossils between that species and the two bracketing it. To reiterate - this is either the result of bad faith or a traumatic head injury.

You can hop and jump and stamp your foot like Rumpelstiltskin, but those of us who have the vestiges of our critical faculties will still be over there, in the corner, deriving much mirth from your antics.

You are a splendid fellow, who does much to add to the gaiety of nations. Sir, I salute you!
(Anonymous)
11th May, 2009 17:19 (UTC)
Third Hand Stupid
This is where and when the lies of second hand smoke began.

DaveA

"In 1975, Sir George Godber, British delegate to the World Health Organization, and anti-smoker activist even then, presented to WHO his blueprint for changing individual behavior by changing social attitudes. Of smoking, he said: "..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, esp.ecially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS." When asked by a reporter why he had exaggerated the risks of secondary smoke, instead of denying that exaggeration C. Everett Koop is quoted as saying he had to be "forceful in warning of the ETS threat in order to win the public's attention."


http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/Dale.htm
(Anonymous)
11th May, 2009 17:37 (UTC)
Reply from Gt Ormond St. regarding '3rd hand smoke'
1) From what independently verified scientific study springs the evidence that children can be made sick by being in close proximity to the clothes or hair of a tobacco smoker?
2) What types of ‘sickness’ can be caused by such indirect means?

This study came from a reputable peer-reviewed journal, Pediatrics (Vol 123 No.1 January 2009), and the lead author comes from a highly respected research institution, Harvard Medical School. We would suggest if you want to check the scientific basis of that report you do so by contacting the authors.

We can confirm that, following some comments, the website has altered the story to make it clearer what the research did claim, and what it did not say.

(Anonymous)
11th May, 2009 17:39 (UTC)
Second hand smoke (SHS)
You may also want to read my expose on the establishment cover up on the science on Devil's Kitchen too. Here is a taster written by Professor Carl Phillips a Canadian Public Health specialist. It makes grim reading.

DaveA

“Enstrom cites the reign of terror over biology under Stalin as one example of politics trumping science. Though the Soviet case is rather extreme (we North Americans who dare question the scientific orthodoxy only have our careers threatened; not our lives, at least so far), it is not the most extreme. Many cultures were hobbled for centuries because of religious adherence to pseudoscience, and damage to people's health was one of the many results.”

http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/12/passive-smoking-and-salt-mines.html
(Anonymous)
12th May, 2009 11:52 (UTC)
Creationist stupidty
Mr Creationismist, you appear to be one of the stupidest people around. I thought this 6000 year old universe shit only happened in the United States of Jesus...

Check out this youtube video about "Unreasonable doubt" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3l-nzxnD4Q&feature=PlayList&p=D6634E8C277AE159&index=12

I see your stupidity goes far beyond evolution, as you claim to disagree with astrophysics, geology, geneology, history, in fact just about anything that contradicts your fairy-story book.

All the best,

Hibbo
(Anonymous)
14th May, 2009 00:05 (UTC)
On the Evolution of Third Hand Smoke... :>
Someone wrote, "1) From what independently verified scientific study springs the evidence that children can be made sick by being in close proximity to the clothes or hair of a tobacco smoker?"

and was given the answer, "This study came from a reputable peer-reviewed journal, Pediatrics (Vol 123 No.1 January 2009),"

Sorry. I believe you're wrong. That study is, as Underdog noted, simply a report on an opinion survey. The authors of the report said a lot of silly things along the way but they presented no evidence of anyone being made sick by the attograms and femtograms and zeptograms of stuff in "third hand smoke."

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

{Hmmmm... Antismokers' Brains... now THERE'S a good argument against Creationism... or maybe against evolution...}
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )